Benjamin Williams, Jr. v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 126 (unpublished)
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
08-993
Opinion Delivered
BENJAMIN WILLIAMS, JR.
Petitioner
v.
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION
Respondent
March 5, 2009
PRO SE PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
[CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN
COUNTY, LCV 2008-9, HON. ROBERT
H. WYATT, JR., JUDGE]
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Benjamin Williams, Jr., an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department
of Correction, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lincoln County Circuit Court that
was dismissed. Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal, and later filed a motion for an
extension of time to file the record on appeal. The circuit court granted the motion for an
extension of time to file the record, but our clerk declined to file the record tendered, on the
basis that the order extending the time to file the record was invalid. Petitioner filed a pro
se motion for rule on clerk.
We did not consider the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the motion, because it was
clear on the partial record that, even if we were to grant petitioner’s motion, he could not
prevail on any appeal, and we denied the motion on that basis. Williams v. Norris, 08-993
Cite as 2009 Ark. 126 (unpublished)
(Ark. Nov. 20, 2008) (per curiam). Petitioner now brings this motion for reconsideration of
that denial.
Petitioner complains in his motion that he followed correct procedure in order to bring
his appeal and protests that he has been denied an opportunity for this court to address the
merits of his appeal. He contends that he presented a valid petition for writ of habeas corpus
to the circuit court, and argues that he should be allowed to present his appeal.
Despite petitioner’s claim that he presented a valid petition, the record before this
court indicated that petitioner had not presented cognizable claims, as our previous opinion
noted. In effect, this court fully addressed the merits of the appeal and there is no need for
further consideration. An appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted
to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Lukach v. State, 369 Ark.
475, 255 S.W.3d 832 (2007) (per curiam). Had this court permitted petitioner to proceed
with an appeal, the result would have been no different. Petitioner has therefore stated no
good cause to reconsider our previous decision.
Petition denied.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.